Talk:Shaun Alexander

Are the terms "dominating force" and "blistering" really NPOV? 172.161.56.164 06:19, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agree, it is not. Be bold and change it. :-) --J. Nguyen 01:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Aey yeah ...he wrote some childrens books might want to mention that. Jigsaw Jimmy 02:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I think a picture of Shaun is nessary... -Johnny-Who? 05:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)--Johnny-Who? 05:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)--

Madden picture - Fair Use?

Wikipedia:Fair use says, "Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)." If I'm not misinterpreting this, that means that the Madden cover art can only be used in an article about Madden. I don't think its current use is allowed. -Elmer Clark 08:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, forget it, I now see that it's used in the section about his appearance on the game. D'oh. -Elmer Clark 08:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it must be removed.Mezlo 02:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This was all handled before. The article discusses the game cover in the article as it pertains to the "Madden Curse". This is fair use. See the Billy Ripken for an example - the baseball card is fair use (same as here). I'm going to revert. Otduff 19:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Ripken image is a copyright violation - It's claimed to be promotional, yet almost all baseball cards are licensed by the MLB and thus cannot be used without proper consent. While the Madden 07 image was originally uploaded on WP to depict the cover of the game in question, it may not be used to depict Alexander. The image is not needed since the text is enough to describe Alexander's presence on the cover. Unless someone wants to alter the fair-use rationale of the image, it's current licence does not allow it to be used on Wikipedia. This why mundane Magazine covers are also forbidden to be used in WP article for the sake of decoration. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  23:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia doesnt seem to agree with you that the Billy Ripken image is a copyright violation. In fact, Wikipedia:Fair use specifically says "A sports card image is a legitimate fair use if it is used only to illustrate the article (or an article section) whose topic is the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article". As for the cover of Madden here, the same article also says "Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)". Since the commentary here involves the Madden Curse and is specific to this cover with Alexander's picture on the cover, this seems obvious this is not a fair use issue. Again, this was settled back in August and hasnt been brought up since for a reason. At least that is my take - if others disagree, feel free to edit according to the consensus view. Otduff 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Baseball Card claim is listed under the "Counterexamples's" section of the WP:FU page. As for this article, I think there may be a violation with number 4 - but, however, the Game is mentioned (as you stated). --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  06:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I see, I guess this is fair.Mezlo 18:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section

The Trivia Section needs proper citations. Simply saying "shaunalexander.org" is not enough. Until this issue is straightened out, I'm leaving a "Needs Citations Tag" --ShadowJester07 21:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Madden07.jpg

Image:Madden07.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NCAA Football 2001 Coverart.jpg

Image:NCAA Football 2001 Coverart.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Notable Achivements

Shaun Alexander has a number of notable achivements. 5 TDs in 1 half (NFL Record), consecutive games with at least a 10 yard run (something like 68, previous record was 60 and belonged to Barry Sanders), 5 consecutive TD seasons, his 2005 season is currently the 9th best in NFL history stuff like that. I can write all that up, but I was wondering would it be better to add them in the infobox or a new section.--Insancipitory (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Brief semi-protection of article

After blocking two ip's for vandalism, I noted that todays edit history is mostly clean up of bad faith ip edits. Under the circumstances I have semi-protected the article for 24 hours. When it expires would someone please remove the template from the article page? Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 20:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It says he signed with the Saints but nowhere on the internet is that said to be true and the source he gives says Alexander is done.

Free Agency and 2008

Might I suggest merging the 2008 Season and Free Agency sections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.68.146 (talk • contribs)

I've overhauled the headers/table of contents. I'll wait for suggestions from others before proceeding with merging the two sections. Latics (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since nobody else has shown much interest in it ... I've merged relevant information to the Redskins section. :) Latics (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation of August 2009 and September 2009 contents has been completed

In reviewing the contents of the Shaun Alexander article, the conclusion reached is that the article is best served by maintaining the revisions in place as of the entry below:

(cur) (prev) 06:01, 15 September 2009 Latics (talk | contribs) m (29,456 bytes) (fix vandalism) (undo)

Bickering over minute details is not necessary and not benefiting the article content nor the Wikipedia site in general. This article is not "Owned" by any one person. It belongs to the Wikipedia community, and if a consensus has been reached as to the accuracy of an article, including the Shaun Alexander article information, that consensus should be respected.

Please do not make this a personal "tit for tat" regarding the contents.

As of the date and time mentioned above, the details and references in said contents has been confirmed.

Any additional information should be fully referenced so that it may be vetted and it's accuracy confirmed.

Wikifanboy (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that I fixed a link to the Japanese Wiki article with this edit, correct? –  LATICS  talk  04:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexander's Current Status in regards to the NFL as of Sep 30 of 2009

A recent article in the Seattle PI states clearly that Alexander is still Unemployed - he has not been signed by any NFL team since the Washington Redskins cut him last season. Here is the address of the article:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlesports/archives/177602.asp

Here is a quote from that same article - the very first line of that article in fact:

"While the Seattle Seahawks brought in 31-year-old Edgerrin James this week, Shaun Alexander remains unemployed at the same age."

3 games into the regular season, all throughout the preseasons, Alexander has remained Unemployed.

I believe that since the article is quite recent and we are 3 weeks into the regular season, it is fair to state that Mr. Alexander is indeed a "former" player at this time.

Just because he, and possibly many of us, would like him to be employed by an NFL team, that does not mean it actually is the case.

Should that change, the article should be updated to reflect that as well. 71.197.145.9 (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Because he is no longer with a team does not mean he is "former." Former implies he is retired, which he is not. –  LATICS  talk  04:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct. He is a free agent, as the article states. If he formally retires, then he will be a former player. The creator of this section really needs to stop socking and edit-warring over this. Enigma^msg 04:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there actually a formal retirement process for the NFL? ++Arx Fortis (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

To be officially retired, you have to file retirement papers with the NFLPA. Some guys don't for one reason or another, and their rights are still owned by a team (Jake Plummer for example.. or the few players that did not report) But most of the time, the unnoficial way to be retired is to be a free agent for 3-4 years without getting signed. RF23 (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Plus, any "big name" player, such as Alexander, would likely come out and say he's retired (as an unofficial/official sort of way). – Latics ^Talk! 22:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed his listing to Former Player. He will be 33 (old for an NFL running back) by the start of the 2010 season, hasn't played in almost two years, and is not in any 2010 training camp. Whether he officially announces it or not, his NFL playing career is done. Raider Duck (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Current status edit war (October 2010)

Someone keeps changing the page back to imply that Alexander is still an NFL player, and a "free agent." He isn't. He is a former player. He's been out of the NFL for almost two solid years, was declining physically before that, has elicited no interest from any NFL team, and is at an age (33) that is considered old for NFL running backs. He will never play in the NFL again. It makes no difference if he has officially "retired" or not. He will not play in the NFL again. Therefore, he is a former player.

If anyone disagrees, please provide the name of any other NFL running back who was past 30, out of professional football for two years (or more) due to lack of team interest, and then signed by an NFL team. Remember: we're not talking about a long-term injury rehabilitation (like Marcus Dupree or Robert Edwards) or a player going to the CFL, taking a voluntary sabbatical or somesuch. We're talking about a healthy running back (or other physically demanding position such as linebacker) actively soliciting NFL offers for years and receiving none.

I understand many fans of Alexander may like him, and may not want his outstanding NFL career to be over. But it is. And this article should reflect that. Raider Duck (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss Alexander's abilities or analyze his career prospects. He's not officially retired, so continuing to list him as a free agent seems to be the right thing to do. You've been reverted by multiple editors, so please wait for consensus on the talk page to develop. Dayewalker (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to an honest discussion of how his status should be listed. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that anyone would think he isn't a former player, for the reasons I listed above. Most NFL running backs have an abysmally short tenure after age 30, due to the physically demanding nature of the position. While I agree that the discussion page should not turn into a wholesale discussion on Alexander's career prospects, I was attempting to articulate why a "former player" listing is correct. All I've been getting in response is a "He's an active player until he says he's not" edit war. Given his recent activities (going on a book tour, etc.), he probably didn't feel the need to make an official retirement announcement, or he may have a hard time "letting go" (i.e. Brett Favre). This does not change the fact that his chances of playing in the NFL again are roughly equivalent to Jimmy Carter's chances of winning a second Presidential term, or of Donald Trump marrying Rosie O'Donnell.

My posts on this discussion page were (IMHO) an attempt to reach a consensus, but you, Dayewalker, are the first person to actually respond instead of mindlessly reverting. Thank you. It is worth noting that of the users that have reverted me, only one (other than yourself) is an actual named editor; the others are all generic IP addresses from the greater Seattle area, which leads me to suspect that these other "multiple editors" may well be one die-hard Shaun Alexander fan. Raider Duck (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Update

Dayewalker: A week ago, you sensibly reverted this article for consensus. Since then, nobody has given any reasons why Alexander should be listed as current player, as opposed to a former one. Here are the main reasons why he is a former player:

• He is 33 years old, which is considered ancient for an NFL RB.
• He has not played professional football for two years; we aren't talking about an active player who was cut last week.
• This involuntary sabbatical is not due to injury or other pursuits. It is due to lack of NFL interest.
• I was not able to find even one single example in modern NFL history of a healthy thirtysomething running back, involuntarily out of professional football for two years (or more), who was suddenly signed by an NFL team. It simply doesn't happen. Punters, placekickers and the occasional quarterback, maybe. Running backs, no.
• Judging by his Yards per Carry (5.1 to 3.6 to 3.5 to 2.2), he was physically declining for several years before his NFL exit.
• Given NFL roster limits and Alexander's own heavily eroded skill set, no NFL team is likely to sign him over a cheaper 23-year-old who would have equivalent current skills to Alexander, be able to play Special Teams, and have the potential to improve.

This is beginning to resemble the debate over whether the late Lucian Pulvermacher should have been listed as Pope Pius XIII or not. Just as it was decided that Pulvermacher's delusions should not be accommodated in an online encyclopedia, neither should delusions that Alexander is still a current NFL player. He isn't. His career is over. Therefore, he is a former player, and I will revert the article back. Raider Duck (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, your personal analysis of the situation is all original research. I disagree with you still, but since no one else has weighed in here on the talk page, I've posted at the NFL project to see if someone there can give their option on the matter. That thread is here [1]. Dayewalker (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes players retire, sometimes they don't. I don't think Freddie Mitchell ever officially retired, but it appears he will never play again. The difference between retired and not being signed by a team for again is a technicality. Also, free agent can be considered "former" since they are not currently on a team. Therefore, this is a moot point until he actually makes his retirement official. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the look-see, Eagles. So you approve of changing "free agent" to "former"? Dayewalker (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I approve both, but "former" makes the most sense right now. If Alexander is rumored to sign with a team at any point in the future, I think it should be changed to "free agent" again until speculation dies down or he signs with another team. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree, two years is easily too soon to assume he is a former player, maybe four years? Revert to Free Agent. Dappl (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

What would happen in two years that would decide this change? It's not like he'll sign with a team in the next two years, and if he does, we'll fix the lead then. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Stranger things have happened, While its unlikely Shaun will play again. He is still working out to play on a team this season. If its four years out of action, then we KNOW he wont play again. Two years is just too soon, maybe four years total? Dappl (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)